I am making a post on this because of the evil fake Christians that say that God hates fags. No God loves homosexuals as he loves all decent human beings. He just hates homosexuality and sodomy(ass fucking) because it goes against the biological laws of nature that he designed through evolution. Our sexual hormones are our signals that are telling us to breed. Having attraction to the same sex goes against the laws of nature because it does not produce offspring. He also hates same sex marriage because it goes against what the purpose of marriage is which is procreation. I will now explain what the Bible says about homosexuality and what the Bible forbids.

First I will address the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. Many think that God had the city destroyed because they engaged in homosexual behavior. That is not true. They were punished for various sins, a major one being attempted rape of two angels.

Next I will address what Leviticus 20:13 says about what should be done to sodomites. It is very harsh but it is from the Old Testament and only applied to the context of the time. It calls for the death penalty for homosexuals but that is because the ancient Israelites lived in a harsh desert environment with a lack of good sanitation. AIDS could easily spread in that environment so putting them to death was done to save the Israelites from getting infected.

Now I will address what the New Testament says about homosexual sex. In Romans 1:26 it clearly condemns homosexual sex. And in 1 Corinthians 6:9 the Apostle Paul says that.

The term “abusers of themselves with mankind” is the translation in the King James Bible of the Greek word arsenokoitai which means men having sex with men.

So the Bible does condemn homosexual sex, but as I said, that DOES NOT mean that God hates fags or condemns homosexuals to hell. God hates homosexuality but he does not condemn homosexuals as long as they do not engage in homosexual sex. However Homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex can be saved as long as they confess their sins to a priest after they do so. Therefore Milo can still go to heaven.

Yes that documentary proves that there are homosexual animals, but that does not change the fact that homosexuality is a biological defect in both humans and animals because any evolutionary biologist can tell you that the biological evolutionary purpose of sexual hormones in animals is for them to mate and produce offspring. There is no evidence of a gay gene that makes people born gay. It seems like circumstances can make someone gay such as influence by other homosexuals, or other factors.

Nevertheless humans are sentient so they have the capacity to choose how they behave sexually. There are many homosexuals who have been capable of having heterosexual sex with their wives producing children. A good example would be King James. Hardcore homosexuals who are incapable of heterosexual sex can still abstain from having sexual relations. Or as I said, they can confess their sins to a priest.

So in Christianity, homosexuals can confess their sins to priests and be forgiven. In Islam on the other hand, homosexuals get put to death in Muslim countries and in Orlando, over 50 gays were killed by a Muslim in a brutal terrorist attack. Which means that us Conservatives are far better friends of homosexuals than the left because the left supports Muslim immigration and we know how Muslims treat homosexuals.

You do realize that there are perfectly good evolutionary reasons for homosexuality, right?

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada

Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

You do realize that there are perfectly good evolutionary reasons for homosexuality, right?

Examples?

They add to the workforce without reproducing.

What happens (I'd have to find a citation on this, I admit) is that women have a tendency to release more of a certain hormone during pregnancy as they have more sons, and there is a correlation between homosexual tendencies and exposure to that hormone, and this would have been selected for because of the above reason: homosexuals add to the workforce but do not contribute to population growth.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada

Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

You do realize that there are perfectly good evolutionary reasons for homosexuality, right?

Examples?

They add to the workforce without reproducing.

What happens (I'd have to find a citation on this, I admit) is that women have a tendency to release more of a certain hormone during pregnancy as they have more sons, and there is a correlation between homosexual tendencies and exposure to that hormone, and this would have been selected for because of the above reason: homosexuals add to the workforce but do not contribute to population growth.

You do realize that there are perfectly good evolutionary reasons for homosexuality, right?

Examples?

They add to the workforce without reproducing.

What happens (I'd have to find a citation on this, I admit) is that women have a tendency to release more of a certain hormone during pregnancy as they have more sons, and there is a correlation between homosexual tendencies and exposure to that hormone, and this would have been selected for because of the above reason: homosexuals add to the workforce but do not contribute to population growth.

That is the problem. They do not contribute to population growth.

Which is a beneficial trait when a population threatens to become larger than its available resources can sustainably support.

Hence the populations in which the women have this tendency to bear homosexual children when they have borne many children were more likely to survive than the ones where the women did not.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada

Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Our sexual hormones are our signals that are telling us to breed. Having attraction to the same sex goes against the laws of nature because it does not produce offspring.

Setting aside that your understanding of biology is somewhere between ridiculously oversimplified and just patently wrong, and yet you try to derive ethics from it....

Didn't you say you wanted to chemically castrate yourself, Jacob? How do you fit that within your biologically deterministic/divinely mandated sexual ethics?

How is it between oversimplified and patently wrong? The reason why animals have sexual hormones is for reproduction. Otherwise they would reproduce asexually creating clones of themselves.

As for chemical castration, while I would ideally like to reproduce sexually, my sexual hormones never matured enough to be able to do so, given my jean fetish. So since I most likely won’t be able to produce children, then my sexual hormones are unnecessary.

You do realize that there are perfectly good evolutionary reasons for homosexuality, right?

Examples?

They add to the workforce without reproducing.

What happens (I'd have to find a citation on this, I admit) is that women have a tendency to release more of a certain hormone during pregnancy as they have more sons, and there is a correlation between homosexual tendencies and exposure to that hormone, and this would have been selected for because of the above reason: homosexuals add to the workforce but do not contribute to population growth.

That is the problem. They do not contribute to population growth.

Which is a beneficial trait when a population threatens to become larger than its available resources can sustainably support.

Hence the populations in which the women have this tendency to bear homosexual children when they have borne many children were more likely to survive than the ones where the women did not.

But in America the problem is not the population of Americans becoming larger, it is the population becoming smaller. There will not be enough Americans in the workforce and the Democrats and Rinos will use that as a justification for more open borders which would cause increase in crime, and American’s losing their jobs and adaquate wages as the immigrants will work for cheaper labor. With continued open borders, America will lose it’s culture as people from other cultures will displace the population of Americans and America would no longer be America.

How is it between oversimplified and patently wrong? The reason why animals have sexual hormones is for reproduction. Otherwise they would reproduce asexually creating clones of themselves.

You think biology has objective purposes and you are under the impression that sex hormones are just a thing telling you to have sex more. That's just from one sentence.

Quote

As for chemical castration, while I would ideally like to reproduce sexually, my sexual hormones never matured enough to be able to do so, given my jean fetish. So since I most likely won’t be able to produce children, then my sexual hormones are unnecessary.

"my sexual hormones never matured enough to be able to do so"

You have no idea how fetishes, hormones, evolution, and for all I know reproduction work. Probably should stop trying to derive ethics from it.